Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: Read the study newb. It in no way supports this articles outlandish claim that solar variance is solely responsible for climate change

This (specious cherry-picking) is a common feature of the denialosphere. Others are quote-mining, half-truths, bringing up irrelevant facts (e.g., CO2 is plant food, CO2 levels were way higher millions of years ago, etc), distortion of relevant facts, coming up with conspiracy theories (1) and other nonsense.Some debunking of the ridiculous claims of this "article" (2, 3)

quote: Science is hard. Particularly for wingnuts.

Couldn't agree more. The vast scientific illiteracy of Americans is exploited by unscrupulous pundits (i.e., shills) demanding "debate" and "fairness" to spew their carefully crafted talking points on mass media, sowing doubt on scientific findings (4, 5) Add hate radio spoon-feeding millions of people with soundbites based on scaremongering and you understand how the inherent uncertainty of science is leveraged by spin doctors acting as frontmen for powerful interests. So, if you don't come up with mathematical certainty (100% exactitude) you're accused of doing "junk science". Amazingly, when it comes to public health and the environment, you always find the contrarian talking points coming from the network of wingnuttery (6)

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA